A German judge has tossed one of Motorola's 3G patent claims against Apple, …

A judge in Germany has ruled that Apple does not infringe one of Motorola's claimed 3G "standards essential" patents, dismissing the related patent infringement lawsuit. The win is an important one for Apple, which has argued that patents related to 3G networking standards should not be used to gain injunctions against competitors' products that use those standards.

At issue in the lawsuit was European patent EP1053613, "Method and System for Generating a Complex Pseudonoise Sequence for Processing a Code Division Multiple Access Signal." In particular, Motorola claimed that Apple must have violated the patent if it implemented 3G networking in any device as Motorola declared it essential to 3G networking standards.

Judge Andreas Voss of the Mannheim Regional Court ruled that Motorola presented no evidence that Apple's actual implementation used the specific means of generating the pseudonoise sequence claimed in the patent. Merely arguing that the specification required generating the pseudonoise sequence was not sufficient to prove Apple infringed the patent, according to Voss.

While Apple was able to get favorable rulings in other EU courts over alleged infringement of 3G-related patents, which are encumbered by agreements to license those patents under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms, the legal precedents in Germany concerning such FRAND-encumbered patents is a little more complex. A FRAND defense can only be used if a company has made an offer to license the patents in question on FRAND terms and posted a bond for expected future royalties. If a patent holder then refuses the offer and sues, the FRAND defense can be used.

Under this legal framework, Apple lost a ruling over another 3G-related patent to Motorola in December 2011. The resulting injunction forced Apple to remove iPhones and iPads from its German online store for a short period last week, though a temporary stay let Apple put the products back on sale pending the result of an appeal.

In order to gain some clarity and standardization on royalties and limits to the use of FRAND-encumbered 3G patents, Apple sent a letter to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), the group responsible for creating 3G standards, last November. In the letter, Apple asked that royalty rates be based on the number of patents a company owns with respect to the entire pool of patents involved in the standard. It also asked that the base for calculating the royalty be standardized on the basic hardware used to implement the standard, not on the full retail value of a device that has 3G networking capabilities. Finally, Apple asked that FRAND patents be barred from being used to gain injunctions against competitors.

Both Microsoft and Cisco made statements supporting Apple's FRAND principles after the contents of the letter were made public this week. Google, for its part, merely agreed to maintain Motorola's stance on its FRAND commitments, which it told a court could be used as "lethal weapons" against competitors.

Whether it is Apple, Samsung, Motorola or anyone else it just makes no sense that patents essential for a 'standard' are not part of the package, especially when the above companies are on the official documents. The fact that in this case that " Motorola declared it essential to 3G networking standards", then it should have been present as part of the package that all licences pay for and not some hidden extra.

If the companies were external to said documents or negotiations, then that would be a different matter, since a forced standard should not be reason for the inventor of a given technology to not receive the license fees.

Its a shame that so much business needs to be handled through lawyers.

So, MMI presented no evidence that Apple is using an algorithm that is absolutely essential to the standard.. How does this work then? If you keep what you do secret enough you are not vulnerable to patent claims? Shouldn't to court have ordered Apple to disclose how they implement that part of the standard?

Why hasn't Qualcomm licensed all these patents and baked the royalty into the price of their chip?

So, MMI presented no evidence that Apple is using an algorithm that is absolutely essential to the standard.. How does this work then? If you keep what you do secret enough you are not vulnerable to patent claims? Shouldn't to court have ordered Apple to disclose how they implement that part of the standard?

Why hasn't Qualcomm licensed all these patents and baked the royalty into the price of their chip?

There is discussion that they had, but that Motorola suspended that license with respect to Apple to force Apple to negotiate a separate deal.

You're being overly vague. The fact that both products are a rectangular shape isn't the point of contention. The point of contention is that the Samsung product looks identical to the Apple product. Samsung's lead counsel couldn't even tell a difference between the two products at a distance of approximately 10 feet.

This ruling makes me happy from a judicial standpoint, sad from an "Apple wins" standpoint. Can we make the rectangle a FRAND patent now?

Assuming that Apple has actually patented the rectangle, which they have not, by making it a FRAND, you are proposing and supporting the idea that Apple should get licensing fees from everyone that uses rectangles (something like 2.25% of the <b>price of the end product./b>, as <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/80976133/12-02-08-Google-to-IEEE-on-MMI-Patents">Motorola and Google stated is fair</a>)?

Since Apple's main objection to these FRAND lawsuits has been on a "they're not offering a fair deal" basis, has anybody actually analyzed the prices other companies are paying on these, or what the "standard" price is in cases such as this? I don't remember ever seeing definitive evidence whether the terms of the deal were much different from "normal". Basically, does Apple have a point, or are they just asking for special treatment?

The

Quote:

royalty rates be based on the number of patents a company owns with respect to the entire pool of patents involved in the standard

part of Apple's letter made me wonder. It sounds like they want special treatment for owning more patents than other companies, but I can't say I know enough about this subject to comment objectively.

Since Apple's main objection to these FRAND lawsuits has been on a "they're not offering a fair deal" basis, has anybody actually analyzed the prices other companies are paying on these, or what the "standard" price is in cases such as this? I don't remember ever seeing definitive evidence whether the terms of the deal were much different from "normal". Basically, does Apple have a point, or are they just asking for special treatment?

The

Quote:

royalty rates be based on the number of patents a company owns with respect to the entire pool of patents involved in the standard

part of Apple's letter made me wonder. It sounds like they want special treatment for owning more patents than other companies, but I can't say I know enough about this subject to comment objectively.

Apple wanted thier FRAND agreement to only count from the day then signed onwards, and to prevent them from having to pay for any infringement in the past. "Sure, we'll pay you a dollar per iPhone sold, but only those sold from today onwards, so you can forget about the 40 million sold already'

Which is why they got in trouble in Germany, which I feel should be correct from a FRAND point of view. Everyone else licensed and paid for all devices, why shouldn't Apple? Apple does not deserve a special deal for themselves.

You're being overly vague. The fact that both products are a rectangular shape isn't the point of contention. The point of contention is that the Samsung product looks identical to the Apple product. Samsung's lead counsel couldn't even tell a difference between the two products at a distance of approximately 10 feet.

Except that any idiot who's not blind CAN tell the difference. The only thing they have in common is the fucking shape. The iPad has a button on it and the Tab does not. End of story. In short, the only way the ruling is remotely reasonable is IF it's based on the black rectangle shape and not anything else, because there are too many differences for even a casual observer to confuse the two.

So, MMI presented no evidence that Apple is using an algorithm that is absolutely essential to the standard.. How does this work then? If you keep what you do secret enough you are not vulnerable to patent claims? Shouldn't to court have ordered Apple to disclose how they implement that part of the standard?

Why hasn't Qualcomm licensed all these patents and baked the royalty into the price of their chip?

Read the article again. The point the court was (rightfully) making was that simply claiming something would not work any other way then what company xyz patented AND not backing these claims up with hard evidence will not get you anywhere in my countries courts. Basically Motorolla was suing Apple under the assumption that ONLY their method was going to work while failing to back this claim up. Sounds like a good call on the judge.

I think the entire trouble with the FRAND is that nobody really says what is FRAND and how it should be implemented. It seems very vague and to me it only makes sense that Apple want's a firm ruling inn what is considered FRAND and how much should be paid for FRAND patents. Of course they are stalling, but they do have a point nevertheless. Clever those Apple lawyers are ;-)

Well, Google may as well dissolve Motorola after they acquire it. This little gem will keep them off of any standards board, or being able to manufacture any standards based chips or equipment ever.

Quote:

Both Microsoft and Cisco made statements supporting Apple's FRAND principles after the contents of the letter were made public this week. Google, for its part, merely agreed to maintain Motorola's stance on its FRAND commitments, which it told a court could be used as "lethal weapons" against competitors.

That's really shooting yourself in the foot. Or maybe a little higher and more towards the center line.

Well, Google may as well dissolve Motorola after they acquire it. This little gem will keep them off of any standards board, or being able to manufacture any standards based chips or equipment ever.

Quote:

Both Microsoft and Cisco made statements supporting Apple's FRAND principles after the contents of the letter were made public this week. Google, for its part, merely agreed to maintain Motorola's stance on its FRAND commitments, which it told a court could be used as "lethal weapons" against competitors.

That's really shooting yourself in the foot. Or maybe a little higher and more towards the center line.

Why? They're not necessarily inconsistent with the intent of FRAND.

What Apple/Microsoft/Cisco are essentially asking with respect to FRAND, particularly in the section where they can't demand an injunction, is to be able to violate the patent with impunity while it's in court. Allegedly the real reason behind the problem with Apple and Motorola over this licensing isn't the rate, but the fact that Apple doesn't want to pay back royalties, which probably amount to a huge payment, or to accept not challenging the patent as valid (I think it's a bit bogus to be able to require that, especially if the patent shouldn't be valid, but certainly Apple needs to pay for it's past infringement).

All FRAND seems to be about is for patents necessary to use a standard to be available at a fair rate to everyone, not that it's a cheap rate or that they're worthless or unenforcable. Apple needs to show, not just claim, that Motorola isn't offering the same terms or similar that it offers to other competitors that license the technology. So far, all I've seen is claims with no evidence, and given Apple's perchant for lying (i.e. the doctored photos used in the Germany Rectangle Lawsuit with Samsung), who can possibly trust them without evidence other than fanbois?

Except that any idiot who's not blind CAN tell the difference. The only thing they have in common is the fucking shape. The iPad has a button on it and the Tab does not. End of story. In short, the only way the ruling is remotely reasonable is IF it's based on the black rectangle shape and not anything else, because there are too many differences for even a casual observer to confuse the two.

Apparently Samsung hires blind idiot lawyers then, since one admitted in court he couldn't tell which was which when the judge held them up.

It's amazing; we're reading an incredibly important article about the nature of FRAND patents and the possibility of using elements that have been declared ESSENTIAL TO STANDARDS as legal weapons, and yet we're consistently diverted off into this fucking shape debate.

STOP IT RIGHT NOW. They are two separate issues. Focus on the discussion at hand, please. While they don't exist in a vacuum, supplanting discussion of one with another is doing a disservice to the tech community in general.

This is one of there design patents. Outside of it being a rectangle with rounded corners, there isn't much else in detail.

So if there's nothing more to it than a rectangle with rounded corners, how is it that the Galaxy Tab 10.1N was approved by the same court that rejected the original? Either you have to have to say the N isn't a round rectangle, or the entire argument is based on a faulty understanding of the facts and/or law. In the image below the device on top was approved but the device below was rejected. They both look like round rectangles to me, but I guess I'm not the legal expert here.

Good luck with that. TechGeek isn’t looking for a FRAND discussion. TechGeek is looking for a vent on Apple session. Plus given his rather primitive grasp of the matters both in question and on the topic he wants to tangent to it seems pretty much hopeless to expect him to accept, much less understand the [not entirely] subtle differences between one type of patent and another.

IMO, these FRAND suits by Motorola and Samsung are desperate attempts to get cross licenses to Apple's non-standards essential patents. So far all Samsung has been able to do is invite an EU antitrust investigation on itself. Motorola has a couple wins in Germany, where FRAND defenses are hard, but Apple has just taken that to California as a breach of Motorola's contract with Qualcomm. If that doesn't work they'll probably escalate the German case to the EU. Motorola will probably be lucky to come out of this without their own antitrust problems.

Read the article again. The point the court was (rightfully) making was that simply claiming something would not work any other way then what company xyz patented AND not backing these claims up with hard evidence will not get you anywhere in my countries courts. Basically Motorolla was suing Apple under the assumption that ONLY their method was going to work while failing to back this claim up. Sounds like a good call on the judge.

I think the entire trouble with the FRAND is that nobody really says what is FRAND and how it should be implemented. It seems very vague and to me it only makes sense that Apple want's a firm ruling inn what is considered FRAND and how much should be paid for FRAND patents. Of course they are stalling, but they do have a point nevertheless. Clever those Apple lawyers are ;-)

But as others have pointed out, the patent(s) were licensed to Qualcomm, who used the technology to make the chip, Apple bought the chips, Motorola disallowed Qualcomm to flow the patent license through to Apple, and so here we are.

This seems pretty straightforward, why hasn't Motorola just got Qualcomm to admit it is using it in part XYZ, as sold to Apple? Or, why hasn't Apple just got Qualcomm to state to the court that the part is not using the patented techinque?

The fact the Qualcomm licenses this patent through to all other buyers of their chip makes it pretty damn likely it is baked into the chip.

Even so, isn't the correct response from the court 'Yes, you seem to have a point here, lets go do some discovery and see how Apple is doing this thing?'. Otherwise, how on earth does a patent holder defend their patent when they have to prove without a doubt that they are being infringed upon without having any opportunity force the possible infringer to disclose their methods?

@grahamwilliams: I too must agree with you about trade-dress and software function. FRAND is not about visuals or hardware. Pictures, doctored photos, squares and buttons... What the hell is that about?

Good luck with that. TechGeek isn’t looking for a FRAND discussion. TechGeek is looking for a vent on Apple session. Plus given his rather primitive grasp of the matters both in question and on the topic he wants to tangent to it seems pretty much hopeless to expect him to accept, much less understand the [not entirely] subtle differences between one type of patent and another.

Other than that…so what about that FRAND!

If you bothered reading you would see I was answering the authors claim that Apple doesn't have a patent on rectangular devices. They do in fact have a design patent, which I showed, which consists of mainly a rectangluar device with a screen. That design patent contains no other details about the device. I never said it was the sole reason why the Samsung Tablet was found to violate the design patents. I also never made any comparison between hardware patents and design patents. The only person with a primitive grasp on anything is you, judging from your lack of comprehension about the conversation.

Apple is crying foul while Motorola probably had no way of avoiding this lawsuit. Apple paid for a set of licenses needed to create a phone. You can't really blame Motorola for not believing Apple didn't need one of the patents that everyone else uses in building the device. Apple could very well have innovated around the patent. But then again they could be lying. I don't see why the burden of proof is necessarily on Motorola. Apple should be able to prove its new method and end the debate.

While Apple was able to get favorable rulings in other EU courts over alleged infringement of 3G-related patents, which are encumbered by agreements to license those patents under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms, the legal precedents in Germany concerning such FRAND-encumbered patents is a little more complex. A FRAND defense can only be used if a company has made an offer to license the patents in question on FRAND terms and posted a bond for expected future royalties. If a patent holder then refuses the offer and sues, the FRAND defense can be used.

Is there somewhere written in clear language the legal difference between what happened in Germany and the other EU countries in regards to this?

Good luck with that. TechGeek isn’t looking for a FRAND discussion. TechGeek is looking for a vent on Apple session. Plus given his rather primitive grasp of the matters both in question and on the topic he wants to tangent to it seems pretty much hopeless to expect him to accept, much less understand the [not entirely] subtle differences between one type of patent and another.

Other than that…so what about that FRAND!

If you bothered reading you would see I was answering the authors claim that Apple doesn't have a patent on rectangular devices.

I read your posts, all your posts. And the other posts here and the ones your were trying to support. Ignorance wall to wall because you see the pictures, decide that it is just a rectangle (even ignoring that the diagrams are far more detailed than that) but you choose to disregard the larger context of what has actually been patented.

Quote:

They do in fact have a design patent, which I showed, which consists of mainly a rectangluar device with a screen. That design patent contains no other details about the device. I never said it was the sole reason why the Samsung Tablet was found to violate the design patents.

Well you certainly implied that was the reason…otherwise, gee, it isn’t actually just a rectangle that was patented. Right? It was much, much more detail than that.

Quote:

I also never made any comparison between hardware patents and design patents.

Then WTF are you mentioning it in this thread besides cluttering up the discussion up with your own personal hatertude agenda? In the words of grahamwilliams: STOP IT RIGHT NOW

Good luck with that. TechGeek isn’t looking for a FRAND discussion. TechGeek is looking for a vent on Apple session. Plus given his rather primitive grasp of the matters both in question and on the topic he wants to tangent to it seems pretty much hopeless to expect him to accept, much less understand the [not entirely] subtle differences between one type of patent and another.

Other than that…so what about that FRAND!

If you bothered reading you would see I was answering the authors claim that Apple doesn't have a patent on rectangular devices.

I read your posts, all your posts. And the other posts here and the ones your were trying to support. Ignorance wall to wall because you see the pictures, decide that it is just a rectangle (even ignoring that the diagrams are far more detailed than that) but you choose to disregard the larger context of what has actually been patented.

Quote:

They do in fact have a design patent, which I showed, which consists of mainly a rectangluar device with a screen. That design patent contains no other details about the device. I never said it was the sole reason why the Samsung Tablet was found to violate the design patents.

Well you certainly implied that was the reason…otherwise, gee, it isn’t actually just a rectangle that was patented. Right? It was much, much more detail than that.

Quote:

I also never made any comparison between hardware patents and design patents.

Then WTF are you mentioning it in this thread besides cluttering up the discussion up with your own personal hatertude agenda? In the words of grahamwilliams: STOP IT RIGHT NOW

I don't have any agenda other that answering claims made by the author of the article. And if you look at the design patent that Apple filed that I link to, there is no other discernible detail other than a device that is rectangular with rounded corners and a screen. Apple even said as much in court when they suggested that Samsung would not be infringing by making a device that wasn't rectangular. That's straight from Apple's mouth.

Is there somewhere written in clear language the legal difference between what happened in Germany and the other EU countries in regards to this?

Germany has strict procedures for employing a FRAND defense in a patent suit. As I understand it, Apple should have posted a bond back when Motorola first informed them they were infringing. The bond only needed to be what Apple thought was fair, and would have allowed them to use a FRAND defense if/when Motorola sued them in Germany. Apparently they hadn't done that. No other countries have this limitation on FRAND defenses. So under German law, Motorola can be as unfair as they like, since Apple can't invoke a FRAND defense.

Read the article again. The point the court was (rightfully) making was that simply claiming something would not work any other way then what company xyz patented AND not backing these claims up with hard evidence will not get you anywhere in my countries courts. Basically Motorolla was suing Apple under the assumption that ONLY their method was going to work while failing to back this claim up. Sounds like a good call on the judge.

I think the entire trouble with the FRAND is that nobody really says what is FRAND and how it should be implemented. It seems very vague and to me it only makes sense that Apple want's a firm ruling inn what is considered FRAND and how much should be paid for FRAND patents. Of course they are stalling, but they do have a point nevertheless. Clever those Apple lawyers are ;-)

But as others have pointed out, the patent(s) were licensed to Qualcomm, who used the technology to make the chip, Apple bought the chips, Motorola disallowed Qualcomm to flow the patent license through to Apple, and so here we are.

This seems pretty straightforward, why hasn't Motorola just got Qualcomm to admit it is using it in part XYZ, as sold to Apple? Or, why hasn't Apple just got Qualcomm to state to the court that the part is not using the patented techinque?

The fact the Qualcomm licenses this patent through to all other buyers of their chip makes it pretty damn likely it is baked into the chip.

Even so, isn't the correct response from the court 'Yes, you seem to have a point here, lets go do some discovery and see how Apple is doing this thing?'. Otherwise, how on earth does a patent holder defend their patent when they have to prove without a doubt that they are being infringed upon without having any opportunity force the possible infringer to disclose their methods?

I agree somewhat with your last paragraph but the burden of proof is on Moto, not Apple. Moto didn't have enough evidence presented to prove anything in the opinion of the judge. Therefore he didn't think the suit deserved further discovery.

In the most recent Friday news, Apple is claiming that it's contracts Qualcomm, lead to patent exhaustion. Apple is asking a California court to tell Moto to withdraw its Qualcomm related claims from German courts.

You're being overly vague. The fact that both products are a rectangular shape isn't the point of contention. The point of contention is that the Samsung product looks identical to the Apple product. Samsung's lead counsel couldn't even tell a difference between the two products at a distance of approximately 10 feet.

How is that different from TV's. I walk into a store and they all look the same... In fact, tablets remind me of little TV's. Wouldn't you say? Perhaps Samsung should ban Apple for making it's tablet look like its TV from 100 feet away.

I mean, after all, you're not going to use a tablet from 10 foot away, are you now. So I don't get the whole 10 foot discussion, it's a bit of a red herring really.

How is that different from TV's. I walk into a store and they all look the same... In fact, tablets remind me of little TV's. Wouldn't you say? Perhaps Samsung should ban Apple for making it's tablet look like its TV from 100 feet away.

That doesn't seem like a very helpful argument. First, I don't think one company can "ban" another one--they can file suit in order to try though. As far as the TV bit goes, I'm far from an expert, but don't design patents only apply to similiar products? If Apple made a television that infringed on a Samsung design patent, then Samsung would be well within their rights to sue--as Apple did in the iPad/Galaxy.

"I am determined to use antitrust enforcement to prevent the misuse of patent rights to the detriment of a vigorous and accessible market," Almunia said. "I have initiated investigations on this issue in several sectors and we will see the results in due time."

Apple, in a complaint filed yesterday in federal court in San Diego, said Motorola’s German suit is based on claims that Apple’s use of Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM) components in the iPhone4S violates Motorola’s European patent. The German suit, Apple claims, is a breach of a patent-licensing agreement between Motorola and Qualcomm.